thoughts on election day (not about candidates)

[cellio]

Voting reforms I would like to see (unlikely as they may be):

1. No "vote straight party" options. The right to vote is important and was hard-won; it is not too much to require that you actually vote for candidates.

2. All voting is write-in. If you can't bother to learn, or write down, some approximation of the names of your chosen candidates, why are you voting for them? All reasonable permutations of spelling accepted (to be determined in advance for each candidate). Nice side bonus: it might reduce negative campaigning, which repeats the opposition candidate's name all over the place...

3. No handing out of campaign literature at the polls. Signs are fine (at distances specified by law), but no hand-outs that subvert #2 and create a waste problem.

The goal of all three: a more-informed electorate. When asked who you voted for you should be able to say something more specific than "the Democrat". It might take a little longer to vote and a little longer to count the results, but isn't it worth it?

And finally:

4. Ranked voting, so that people can vote for perceived dark horses without feeling they've implicitly voted for the greater evil among the front-runners. (You see this all the time -- "I'd like to vote for X, but the bad guy is ahead so I need to vote for the less-bad guy who could actually win instead". So other parties get few votes and the cycle continues.) There are merits to both the Worldcon-style "Australian ballot" (do Australians actually vote that way?), where you keep eliminating the lowest vote-getters until a majority emerges, and point tallies, where top position is worth N points, next on N-1, and so on, and most points wins. Either scheme is better than what we do now.

Now that would be an enpowered electorate!

Comments

[sethg]

(1) I’ve never seen straight-party options on ballots in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville, MA. I assume these were established in cities with more powerful political machines.

(2) No. This is how elections used to be run. Then cronies of whichever party was in charge of vote-counting would look for any excuse to disqualify written-in votes for the opposition, which led the parties to take out newspaper ads with preprinted ballots... and then finally reformers came up with the brilliant idea of preprinting everyone’s name on the ballot itself. A democratic election should simply take the measure of the peoples’ will, not make them jump through hoops to prove their worthiness to vote.

(2a) On the other hand, the blogger Matthew Yglesias has long argued that American elections simply have too many positions on the ballot: it would be better to have the few offices that everyone actually pays attention to be elected and have the rest be appointed.

(3) In Massachusetts, people handing out literature have to stay a certain distance away from the polling place. Is that not the rule in Pennsylvania?

(4) For multi-member constituencies, the technical term is single transferable vote, and it is indeed used in some Australian states, as well as in the People’s Republic of Cambridge. For single-member consistencies, the equivalent of STV is instant-runoff. I love these systems but I despair of them catching on in this nerd-hating country.

[anastasiav.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that we are about to institute instant runoff voting in Mayoral elections here in Portland. We voted about it today, actually. We'll see how it works on a small scale.

The Maine Gov's race had five candidates - a Dem, a Tea Party R, and three independents (one Green, two true unenrolled). IRV would have been handy here, let me tell you, as we're all frantically trying to figure out how to strategically vote to keep the tea party guy out.

[cellio]

(1) I’ve never seen straight-party options on ballots in Boston, Cambridge, or Somerville, MA. I assume these were established in cities with more powerful political machines.

Wow. I have never not seen this. I have also never seen a paper ballot, except absentee.

(2a) On the other hand, the blogger Matthew Yglesias has long argued that American elections simply have too many positions on the ballot: it would be better to have the few offices that everyone actually pays attention to be elected and have the rest be appointed.

I agree with him, though maybe for a different reason. Yes, there's too much stuff to wade through sometimes (not today for me -- only four races), but more to the point, some of the stuff we vote for is either stupid (registrar of wills? really?) or ought to involve expertise and a perspective that we the people don't have (judges).

(3) In Massachusetts, people handing out literature have to stay a certain distance away from the polling place. Is that not the rule in Pennsylvania?

Yes, but it's measured from the room where the voting machines are. For me, the walkway from the street to the polls is longer than the mandated distance.

Today, for the first time in my experience, there was nobody handing out literature. (There were signs.) I was surprised at how refreshing that was; in past years the pamphlets ended up on the street or in the trash, but not in recycling bins (which were not placed in clear view).

[zare-k.livejournal.com]

I don't ever recall seeing straight-party options on a CA ballot either. I was actually shocked to see it when I voted in PA.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

Single transferable vote seems to be gradually catching on. Slowly, but I haven't been seeing it get reversed once it manages to get in place. Nobody really likes the gameplay that naturally attaches to just using the largest plurality, especially if you see a lot of races with more than two or three realistic candidates. (Or at least nobody is willing to admit to liking the gameplay in front of voters.) The fact that STV can (usually) be accurately described as Instant Runoff, and people understand and trust a runoff to have a "fair" result, makes it one of the easier alternatives to push through. Really, the biggest challenge is usually trying to explain why Borda Counts are not just a different way of getting the same thing.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

For me, voting involves going to the polls, getting the ballot which is a sheet of paper with names on it and ovals next to the names, and we use a marker to fill in the oval next to the name we want.

No option to vote party line. In any case, not all offices have candidates from all parties, so, in practical terms, you couldn't.

Not sure I want to make voting into a spelling test. If you're dyslexic enough that you CAN use a ballot, if you familiarize yourself with it, but CAN'T reliably write a name, I don't see that you should be penalized. If you've had a stroke, and are perfectly lucid, but have trouble with fine motor control, I can imagine you might be able to fill in an oval easier than you could write a name.

Our polling place has a line painted on the ground with "ELECTION LIMIT" on it. Most places I've voted that have been polling places for decades have similar painted lines. Any electioneering has to happen on the far side of that line.

I don't mind campaign literature, because I've been handed actual brochures when approaching the polls, which laid out information in fair detail.

[cellio]

I've never seen a paper ballot (except for absentee ballots). I used to vote by pulling levers and now I vote with a touch-screen of dubious reliability. (In no case is there a paper trail; I have a receipt that shows that I voted, but no official record of the vote.)

The party-line option votes for the chosen party in all races where they have a candidate and skips the others. I presume that you can then go back and edit (you could with the levers, I know; I experimented once to see how it worked).

I wasn't trying to make voting into some sort of literacy test. I would prefer that votes be cast positively, using recall, instead of by matching the party designation under the name or recognizing the name. Maybe it would be sufficient to remove parties from the ballot? As with the first item, what I'm really trying to do is push this toward actually voting for people instead of applying a rule like "Green" or "no Democrats".

Aren't there accommodations for the handicapped of any flavor? Blind people, dyslexics, and people with limited motor control can't use today's ballots without assistance either.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

They have paper ballots here. They're of a type with the stardardized-testing answer sheets people use in grade school--you fill in the oval next to your choice. Presumably they're later scanned by some kind of scoring system.

When I was in Pittburgh they used the lever-pull machines. Probably it's just too expensive to replace them in anyplace where they have them already, and they don't seem to break much (that is, they're clearly from decades ago, yet still functioning) so there's not much need.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

Maybe it would be sufficient to remove parties from the ballot?

This is not an absolutely accurate description of Washington state ballots, but it echoes xiphias' experience: for most races, the candidates may (but are not required to) list a "party preference" but the state actively tries to avoid anything that smacks of treating the voters as members of a fixed party. Like, say, registering your party affiliation. This has a couple of immediate implications: in the prior major election, many Republican candidates listed their preferences as "GOP" or ducked the question altogether to avoid being associated with the Republican brand at a time when it was electoral poison.

The other implication is that party primaries collapse below the national level (where it can't be avoided - we don't get to tell Obama and McCain that we just don't do it that way). At the state and local level, we have "jungle primaries" where everyone gets tossed in the same pot, and the candidates with the two largest pluralities move on the the general election regardless of party. This gets us around the problem where the primary is the de facto election in places where one party dominates, but that also means that parties who don't make that filter are shut out of the debate during the general (which can be part of moving toward acceptance even when you lose in the short term) and the whole mechanism means it becomes significantly harder for the party machinery to curate "their own" nomination since candidates can list whatever they want.

Did you hear a sound like an old-fashioned line printer while you voted on your touchscreen?

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

I will bet that you did. If that's the case, there IS a paper trail. Touchscreen machines print to paper rolls while you vote, as well as making electronic copies to RAM and to flash cards. The RAM gets saved during election close and it and the flash cards are the data that are used to produce the election results. The paper rolls, plus other materials preserved by your poll workers, are what will be used in the event (absit omen) that the election must be reconstructed for some reason.

Re: Did you hear a sound like an old-fashioned line printer while you voted on your touchscreen?

[cellio]

Interesting -- thanks for the info! I did hear that but I assumed it was a cute sound-effect built into the software, not actual printing.

It's a damned good thing it's there, too

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

and I'm glad that I sat there for an hour checking for signatures and initials and ballot styles while my co-workers were working on other closing matters, because it looks as if there are going to be TWO recounts in our county, one triggered automatically because the race is so close and one because the loser can't believe he lost (to the incumbent and by a comfortable margin). We counted our paperwork twice by hand, now some other poor souls will have to count it again and look at not only the paper rolls from the touchscreen machines, but all the paper ballots from the Optiscan AND its printouts of its flash cards. (People forget that an Optiscan is an electronic medium as well.) They'll find ours in excellent order. We didn't turn anything in until everything balanced.

Re: Did you hear a sound like an old-fashioned line printer while you voted on your touchscreen?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I guess that's reassuring. The sound was really annoying me as I filled in the only "write in" box on the ballot -- thus assuring everyone in the room that I was NOT voting for the career incumbent to the PA Assembly (running with no opposition).

I have no reason to worry about people knowing who I'm voting for, but for some people/in some areas I'm sure that this is not the case. Having that string of beeps to alert everyone that I was opposed to the incumbent really bugged me. I feel a tiny bit better knowing it was there for a reason (but only a tiny bit).

--Pamela

Re: Did you hear a sound like an old-fashioned line printer while you voted on your touchscreen?

[cellio]

Broadcasting that you were doing something more than just checking a name on the ballot? Oh, not cool. :-(

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

Given that, between state and local races, Julia and I each voted for about 25 people (6 of whom were unopposed judges) and 10 referenda/proposals, requiring write-in voting is somewhat unreasonable. Yes, I can usually remember 25 names or so, but not necessarily what will be the valid spellings.

Given how close our 2004 gubernatorial election (Gregoire vs. Rossi) was (less than 123 votes difference) and that it did go to the courts as it was, I don't even want to think about how bad it would have been if people could argue if spellings were close enough. And, considering the difference in difficulty spelling Gregoire and Rossi, would the win truly have been one that the people wanted or one created by whose attorneys could eliminate more votes based on poor spelling?

FYI, I pay attention to our politics and I called our current governor MacGregoire instead of Gregoire while I drafted that. Should my vote not count?

S

ETA: Washington does a mail-in ballot (you receive it by mail and can either return it by mail or drop it at a balloting location or public library). This is really nice because I was able to spend time with the ballot, researching referenda and candidates -- thereby not relying entirely on the propaganda that comes across our airwaves. This is especially important as the local candidates did not do much advertising or campaign rallies.

[cellio]

Julia and I each voted for about 25 people

Wow. I had 4. Yeah, that would make a difference!

Note that I didn't say spelling had to be exact and that bringing in notes would be ok. I'm not trying to impose a literacy test, just trying to move people away from "oh, I recognize that name" or "vote for whatshisname because he's the $party". I encountered people today who could not name the person they had just voted for for Senate. One admitted to not even having read the names because that's what the "straight party" button was for. (No, I wasn't badgering anybody; these were conversations I overheard at the polling place.)

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

Regarding spellings, yeah, you actually are imposing a literacy test. Why not have all the candidates listed? Then you don't have to argue is MacGregoire or Gregor close enough to Gregoire. That's going to be a big issue in the Alaska Senate race where the incumbent is a write-in candidate. And I fully expect that to end up in court (most write-in races have a series of "acceptable" spellings for the candidate name).

In addition, I could not have told you the names of most of the city candidates until I got our voter's pamphlet (and one of the races wasn't included) -- I just never saw any ads for them or heard much about them in the news. I googled them before voting.

Regarding voting party tickets, why not? If I agree with the party's platform, then why shouldn't I vote straight party? I know you want to see more voting for third-party candidates, but a lot of people believe that is either throwing away their votes or a de facto vote for the incumbent. Other people want to vote for a main candidate so they feel their vote counts, but will vote for the "lesser of two evils." That's their right.

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree.

S

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

I agree with cellio on the straight party option. Everyone who votes should have to make the same number of touches, ovals, etc. to get the same result. No shortcuts. I also wish that every ballot choice had the "abstain" option, so that a voter is required to make a choice. This serves as an additional check on the vote counting (the number of "votes" for race A is the same as the number of "votes" for race B). If they aren't the same, then something was missed (or there was an error).

[cellio]

I have heard that some states have "none of the above" as an option on all ballots, which sounds interesting. If NotA wins do they throw everyone out and start over, I wonder?

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

This is an option I could get behind. I don't like McMurray, but her challenger is even worse.

S

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

I like the abstain or none of the above options. If a certain percentage of the voters don't vote on a race, a new election should be held (of course that's expensive).

But regarding straight party options, I agree it's less than ideal. But people have the right to vote that way. It at least makes it easier for people to vote even if you don't think it's a good idea.

S

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

My whole point is why should voting be easier for some people than for others?

If there are four different races, for example, why should one voter have to make four actions to register their vote while another voter can register their vote for the same four races by a single action?

[cellio]

In addition, I could not have told you the names of most of the city candidates until I got our voter's pamphlet (and one of the races wasn't included) -- I just never saw any ads for them or heard much about them in the news. I googled them before voting.

So you took it upon yourself to become an informed voter (to some level), and went in with a list of names. Nothing in my proposal bars that. If you had not done this, and were seeing the names for the first time in the voting booth, do you feel your vote would have been informed?

Regarding voting party tickets, why not? If I agree with the party's platform, then why shouldn't I vote straight party?

Because candidates don't always follow the platform (or the parts of it you care about) and you might be voting for a whack-job without knowing it? Arlen Specter (until recently) and Pat Toomey are both Republicans but have very different platforms; Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are both Democrats but there was so much division between them that some of their supporters refused to line up behind their party's candidate. Not all members of a party agree; why should I assume that a particular member of my party agrees with me?

Or look at it this way: for the last two years one party has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. If they all agree on the agenda they should have been able to do practically anything, right?

I try not to make too many assumptions about people -- candidates or voters -- based just on party affiliation, because I think people are more complicated than that.

[sue-n-julia.livejournal.com]

Washington puts out a voter pamphlet, which is a huge help. In PA, I don't recall getting one. So I was left at the ballot box with the option of voting for races where I *might* dimly remember something about a candidate (or at least I hoped it was one) or not voting on that race.

Regarding party ticket voting - if that's how someone wants to vote that way, it's their right.

S

[cellio]

Regarding party ticket voting - if that's how someone wants to vote that way, it's their right.

I agree -- one race at a time. Not by one big button that says "I don't care who they are even enough to look at the ballot; just cast an auto-vote and get me out of here".

[sethg]

There was one Cambridge election where a challenger in the City Council race had the same first and last name as one of the incumbents (Cambridge uses STV), but a different middle initial. Some people believed that the challenger had been put up as a straw candidate by opponents of this particular incumbent.

Straight party vote

[brokengoose.livejournal.com]

I've often thought that we SHOULD continue to offer a straight party vote option, but any votes made under that option would be worth half. Mark that clearly, of course. If you're in a hurry, or you can't bother to read the rest of the ballot, it's a quick way to indicate your preference without being informed. Your vote counts for less, though, because you're explicitly saying that you don't care who the candidate is and can't even be bothered to look through the rest of the ballot to find out.

I'd also like to see actual paper ballots of some sort. The lack of a paper trail is disturbing.

Re: Straight party vote

[cellio]

Interesting idea! That has a lot of appeal. Would probably be challenged on "one man, one vote" even though one man had the option for one whole vote instead of half of one, but it would be interesting to see how it played out.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

This is the most interesting election-related post I've read today. I'm going to point a friend of mine who helps run elections to it, as I think she might have some useful perspectives.

[cellio]

Thanks! I'm glad she decided to come visit.

#1 has been implemented in Missouri, and people find it VERY annoying

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

I'm here via browngirl, who knew I'd find this interesting. I'm recuperating today from nearly 19 hours working at the polls yesterday with a sprained ankle and a crick in my neck, so forgive me if I'm a trifle incoherent.

I can't tell you how often people complain to me about having to touch in or ink in the oval next to their candidates' names. "It was so much EASIER in the OLD days!". And sure as hell, people come in and bemoan the absence of the punch cards. I told one man yesterday that he had clearly never seen a stack of punch cards actually BREAK a computer, as I have, and that he probably wouldn't enjoy going back to waiting three days for full election results as we used to have to do.

I swear to the gods that people would use ANY method of voting if we just gave them back the ancient booths with curtains that creaked open when you pulled down a lever. They loved those.

As for write-ins...If you do that, you need to raise funds for your governments to get 1)very, very sophisticated handwriting recognition software 2)an army of staff and 3) be prepared to wait at least a week for your election returns.

I would mostly agree with you on number three, except for the simple fact that often people do take the list of party candidates and use them as a voting guide. I always vote early, due to the fact that I'm working on election day, so I take in a printout of my ballot or a hand-written cheat sheet, then I take it home and put it in my own recycling bin or use the one at the Board of Elections.

How about this...Every single electioneer MUST have a recycling bin with him or her, and must collect literature from exiting voters. Signs MUST be removed from outside the polling place no later than closing time (7 p.m. here in Missouri) or fines will be imposed. If the fines are amateur ones, the fine will be imposed on the candidate or on the organization supporting the measure.

No thoughts on #4. I may not have enough brain left to consider it.

Re: #1 has been implemented in Missouri, and people find it VERY annoying

[brokengoose.livejournal.com]

I would gladly wait a few days after every election if it meant that we could truly verify the results. Security on the electronic voting machines is a joke, and even if votes aren't altered, they're not reliable, and they don't fail gracefully.

Somehow, in much of the world, including modern, industrialized nations, they make due with paper ballots. Many countries simply count the votes at each polling station in public. Representatives from each party verify the vote and keep their own counts. Any member of the public is allowed to watch the counting.

May I make a suggestion to you, since you're so concerned about security?

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

People who want to help protect the sanctity of the vote are desperately needed on the front lines, i.e. at the polls. Running those machines and protecting the data in them while it's at the polls is desperately important, as is making sure that people have a chance to vote. Are you actually committed enough to give a few days per year to the cause of free and fair elections? I can't imagine that any state would turn away an intelligent and aware volunteer.

Re: May I make a suggestion to you, since you're so concerned about security?

[cellio]

I was surprised to discover this year (too late to act) that, with advance notice, my employer gives paid time off to work the polls on election day. My (retired) mother works the polls every election day, so I may have to ask her what that entails.

Re: May I make a suggestion to you, since you're so concerned about security?

[(Anonymous)]

Seriously? I know where Bob will be next year. Our kids think Election Day is a minor holiday. (Of course, his working at the polls would impede the traditional post-voting family breakfast at Eat 'n Park, which would probably not be popular...)

As for security, I also (because of Bob, mind you) do not trust the electronic voting machines, and having more physical security really does not enter into it. I'm not worried that the votes are going to be tampered with by people _outside_ the machine.

As for the "people like to have the curtain around them" issue, I am one of those people. The facts that two people walked behind me while I was voting, that those panels on the side of the touchscreen aren't enough to obstruct the view of a tall (or leaning) person if the machines have to be closely spaced, that our voting area (an elementary cafeteria) is not large enough to really spread out the voting "booths," and that everyone knows at a glance who is standing at the machine that is beeping because of a write in vote bother me. A lot. I feel very exposed.

Interestingly, my complaints led to a big discussion about whether or not you should be guaranteed private/secret voting. Apparently it initially met with resistance in the United States, in a "you must be a coward if you want a secret ballot" kind of way. But that's another issue.

--Pamela

Re: May I make a suggestion to you, since you're so concerned about security?

[cellio]

Seriously?

Yeah. Sometimes it pays to read the corporate newsletters. Now, given the way the company is structured, whether any particular location will go along with that hit to overhead hours is anyone's guess, but it's worth a try! (The policy requires 30 days' notice to one's manager, FYI.)

I would be bothered if I thought someone were able to tell who I, specifically, voted for too. (For the same types of reasons that I think votes to unionize a workplace should remain as secret ballots.)

Re: May I make a suggestion to you, since you're so concerned about security?

[brokengoose.livejournal.com]

This is a very good idea. I'll be contacting the local bureau of elections to see what I need to do (or, since the election just ended, when to contact them again).

Thank you for the suggestion!

Re: #1 has been implemented in Missouri, and people find it VERY annoying

[cellio]

Hello, and thanks for commenting.

I can't tell you how often people complain to me about having to touch in or ink in the oval next to their candidates' names.

Yeah, some people will complain about anything, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. I mean, it would sure be easier on lots of us if they would just mail a ballot to my house and come collect it afterwards, too, but that doesn't mean anyone's going to listen to me. :-)

As for write-ins...If you do that, you need to raise funds for your governments to get 1)very, very sophisticated handwriting recognition software 2)an army of staff and 3) be prepared to wait at least a week for your election returns.

The implementation I had in mind for write-ins is actually type-ins, but yes this would slow down the counting. I'm ok with not having instant gratification.

I would mostly agree with you on number three, except for the simple fact that often people do take the list of party candidates and use them as a voting guide.

I wouldn't bar bringing in materials at all; anything you want to bring in yourself is fine. You don't have to memorize your write-ins either; bring a list. Or the guide from the League of Women Voters or your favorite newspaper or whatever.

How about this...Every single electioneer MUST have a recycling bin with him or her, and must collect literature from exiting voters.

I could get behind that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

(1) Word. Even if you are just walking in with a cheat-sheet you should never be beholden to one party.

(2) Not sure on this.. we have enough candidates that I don't hear of until I get the ballot (and then have to go online to research) that I like having at least a list of names in a booklet. My handwriting is also so poor that my vote would no longer count. ;-)

(3) Oh, you would have loved Elihu Harris. His staff basically handed out coupons for free chicken dinners for people who voted for him. I kid you not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elihu_Harris)

[cellio]

(2) Not sure on this.. we have enough candidates that I don't hear of until I get the ballot (and then have to go online to research) that I like having at least a list of names in a booklet.

And you could bring that list of names with you -- no problem there. It's not a memory test.

My handwriting is also so poor that my vote would no longer count. ;-)

I was actually thinking of write-ins being implemented as type-ins. Much easier for everybody.

(3): oh my...

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

I was actually thinking of write-ins being implemented as type-ins.

Ah, I vote absentee. My polling place is inconvenient, and I much prefer lying down with the booklet and a laptop when deciding on who to vote for. Once that part is done I don't want to have to fill in a second ballot.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

While I find your suggestions appealing, I think that they are not likely to be accepted by the politicians or the populace.

In California, before every state-wide election, a voter information booklet is mailed (by the state) to every registered voter. Each candidate is allowed to fill a single page with whatever he likes. Each ballot measure gets one page for the pro- and one page for the con-, and one additional page of independent fiscal analysis.

That booklet was INCREDIBLY valuable to me as a voter, and I am convinced that it led to a better-informed electorate. I would pay higher taxes for this service in Pennsylvania.

[cellio]

Agree on probability of acceptance. We can't even get fair ballot access; we're not likely to get any of this...

That booklet sounds like a huge win. Was any of it funded by the candidates, or did the state pay for the whole thing?

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

State pays. You have to be on the ballot to claim space in the booklet.

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

I think there's also a fee for getting your information in there (for candidates). At least, I assume that is the case, because some people don't bother and others seem to keep their words to a minimum. Either that, or the Peace and Freedom people really don't have anything to say...